User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2021-12-11 at 4:38 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump Voting libertarian is voting to lose. It's like you're in a crowded room, and a gun is being passed around. The gun of state power. Your enemies choose to use it on you, and shoot your best friend. When it comes to you you say "no thanks, that's not ethical". So the gun gets passed around again, and your other best friend is shot this time.
That's libertarianism. Willfully losing.
For instance imagine if a jeep driven by a white man drove into a group of black people. The white man hated blacks like poison. His social media was full of hatred of blacks. He swerved back and forth just to try to hit more black people.
Would black advocates, like the jedis, pass up state power?
Yet the representatives of Wisconsin suburb of Waukesha, which was full of white people who had fled the vicious black violence of inner city Milwaukee, said they didn't agree with Federal governance, so won't be pursuing hate crime charges.
With Brooks already dealing with life in jail — and an abundance of bodily proof, video and eyewitnesses — prosecutors don’t must unnecessarily complicate issues with terror or hate crime prices, McCarthy stated.
https://www.pehalnews.in/waukesha-parade-suspect-faces-multiple-life-sentences-regardless-of-motive-if-convicted/1347611/
Tactical libertarianism. Libertarianism when it will cause your side to lose.
The censorship comes hot and heavy when you try to google the only party with a sane take on the Waukesha terrorist attacks - the NJP (National Justice Party). Try googling them and see how far you get.
I don't care about ideology, I only care about economy and regulation. I am just sick of everything being illegal or regulated. I could care less who writes the laws as long as I have a lab of women transformed into monkeys and an atom smasher etc. Politics is molded by economic output so if things are deregulated they will be catching up to technology like with crypto money laundering and ghost guns.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-12-11 at 4:40 PM UTCORANGE MAN BAD.
-
2021-12-11 at 5:13 PM UTCI was told that by the end of December we would see a whole new world come about
-
2021-12-11 at 5:30 PM UTCYou were also told Rump would be reinstated a dozen times by now.
Just maybe...you should check your sources? -
2021-12-11 at 5:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by stl1 The Guardian
Capitol attack panel obtains PowerPoint that set out plan for Trump to stage coup
Hugo Lowell in Washington
Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows turned over to the House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack a PowerPoint recommending Donald Trump to declare a national security emergency in order to return himself to the presidency.
The fact that Meadows was in possession of a PowerPoint the day before the Capitol attack that detailed ways to stage a coup suggests he was at least aware of efforts by Trump and his allies to stop Joe Biden’s certification from taking place on 6 January.
The PowerPoint, titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 Jan”, made several recommendations for Trump to pursue in order to retain the presidency for a second term on the basis of lies and debunked conspiracies about widespread election fraud.
Meadows turned over a version of the PowerPoint presentation that he received in an email and spanned 38 pages, according to a source familiar with the matter.
The Guardian reviewed a second, 36-page version of the PowerPoint marked for dissemination with 5 January metadata, which had some differences with what the select committee received. But the title of the PowerPoint and its recommendations remained the same, the source said.
Senators and members of Congress should first be briefed about foreign interference, the PowerPoint said, at which point Trump could declare a national emergency, declare all electronic voting invalid, and ask Congress to agree on a constitutionally acceptable remedy.
The PowerPoint also outlined three options for then vice-president Mike Pence to abuse his largely ceremonial role at the joint session of Congress on 6 January, when Biden was to be certified president, and unilaterally return Trump to the White House.
Pence could pursue one of three options, the PowerPoint said: seat Trump slates of electors over the objections of Democrats in key states, reject the Biden slates of electors, or delay the certification to allow for a “vetting” and counting of only “legal paper ballots”.
The final option for Pence is similar to an option that was simultaneously being advanced on 4 and 5 January by Trump lieutenants – led by lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, as well as Trump strategist Steve Bannon – working from the Willard hotel in Washington DC.
The Guardian revealed last week that sometime between the late evening of 5 January and the early hours of 6 January, after Pence declined to go ahead with such plans, Trump then pressed his lieutenants about how to stop Biden’s certification from taking place entirely.
The recommendations in the PowerPoint for both Trump and Pence were based on wild and unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, including that “the Chinese systematically gained control over our election system” in eight key battleground states.
The then acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, and his predecessor, Bill Barr, who had both been appointed by Trump, by 5 January had already determined that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the outcome of the 2020 election.
House investigators said that they became aware of the PowerPoint after it surfaced in more than 6,000 documents Meadows turned over to the select committee. The PowerPoint was to be presented “on the Hill”, a reference to Congress, the panel said.
The powerpoint was presented on 4 January to a number of Republican senators and members of Congress, the source said. Trump’s lawyers working at the Willard hotel were not shown the presentation, according to a source familiar with the matter.
But the select committee said they did find in the materials turned over by Meadows, his text messages with a member of Congress, who told Meadows about a “highly controversial” plan to send slates of electors for Trump to the joint session of Congress.
Meadows replied: “I love it.”
Trump’s former White House chief of staff had turned over the materials to the select committee until the cooperation deal broke down on Tuesday, when Meadows’ attorney, Terwilliger, abruptly told House investigators that Meadows would no longer help the investigation.
The select committee announced on Wednesday that in response, it would refer Meadows for criminal prosecution for defying a subpoena. The chairman of the select committee, Bennie Thompson, said the vote to hold Meadows in contempt of Congress would come next week.
“The select committee will meet next week to advance a report recommending that the House cite Mr Meadows for contempt of Congress and refer him to the Department of Justice for prosecution,” Thompson said in a statement.
THEY HAVE THE POWERPOINT! -
2021-12-11 at 5:42 PM UTC
-
2021-12-11 at 5:54 PM UTCTRUMP is getting REINSTATED on January 1st! They just found fraud in every state.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-12-11 at 6:27 PM UTCOld news.
lol -
2021-12-11 at 6:46 PM UTC
-
2021-12-11 at 6:58 PM UTCIt took the election thieves four years to plan the theft of the 2020 election, so a year or two is hardly an unreasonable time frame to reverse it. Have faith! Everything is imploding for the election thieves right now, and it's going to get much worse for them in the coming months. Watch and see. Ever hear that old saying, "Cheaters never prosper"? They never do. Hold that thought.
-
2021-12-11 at 6:59 PM UTC
-
2021-12-11 at 11:29 PM UTCNBC News
Why Fifth Amendment pleas won't keep these Trump allies safe
Teri Kanefield
Roger Stone, a long-time adviser to former President Donald Trump, just became the latest Trump ally to refuse to cooperate with House’s Jan. 6 investigation by invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The growing list includes John Eastman — a former law professor and legal adviser to Trump, and Jeffrey Clark, who served as an assistant attorney general from 2018 until 2021. Alex Jones, a radio show host and a staunch supporter of Trump’s re-election campaign, has also threatened to plead the Fifth in response to his own House subpoena.
While these witnesses may be able to avoid testifying before the select committee by standing on the Fifth, they are merely postponing — and perhaps increasing — their future legal woes.
On Dec. 2, committee Vice Chair Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., noted that, “People sort of talk about the Fifth Amendment without stopping to think about what he is saying if he invokes the Fifth — that he won't answer a question because he's worried about criminal prosecution.” Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., struck a similar note, saying those who plead their Fifth Amendment rights in front of his committee “in some cases are part and parcel guilty to what occurred.” Trump himself famously said, “The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
Cheney was correct. It is important that the public — as well as the members of the select committee — understand exactly what it means that these witnesses are pleading the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, protects a person from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” While the language of the amendment appears to apply only to criminal cases, the Supreme Court has said that it extends to civil and other proceedings if the testimony can be used against the person in a criminal case.
In a criminal proceeding, a defendant’s silence cannot be used against him. In fact, the jury can be instructed not to draw any inferences from the defendant's silence. But in a noncriminal proceeding, the invocation of the privilege is limited to those circumstances in which the person invoking the privilege reasonably believes that his disclosures could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that could be so used. But if invoked, an adverse inference can be drawn when “independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to answer.”
In the cases of Stone, Eastman and Clark, compelling independent evidence exists. Eastman is the author of a two-page memo outlining a scheme to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results Jan. 6. A Senate report details Clark’s “efforts to aid Trump” in "Trump’s relentless effort to coopt the Department Of Justice into overturning the 2020 election.”
No doubt both Clark and Eastman understand that in pleading the Fifth, they are admitting that they have reason to fear their testimony can be used against them in a criminal proceeding. Both are lawyers, and one is also a former law professor.
And criminal proceedings are likely. The select committee has said it intends to make criminal referrals where appropriate, and in fact, this is one of the reasons Eastman offered for refusing to comply with the select committee referral. The select committee has also stated that to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, it will work with other investigatory agencies.
Pleading the Fifth and failing to show up do not exempt witnesses from contempt charges. For one thing, the Fifth Amendment is asserted on a question-by-question basis. In other words, a witness must first show up for the deposition and then decide line by line what answers could expose the person to criminal liability. This serves the purpose of targeting for investigators exactly where the witness’s potential criminal liability lies.
Stone flat out refused to be deposed. Eastman implied that he would also ultimately refuse. Clark initially failed to appear for his deposition. Because he invoked the Fifth Amendment, the select committee gave him another chance to appear. He failed to appear for that deposition as well, claiming illness. The committee postponed the hearing until Dec. 16.
These defendants can’t — and shouldn’t — be forced to talk once they exert their Fifth Amendment privilege to individual questions, but the public, the committee — and criminal investigators — can theorize about what that silence means.
We can also assume that their refusal to talk will not derail the work of the committee. Because of the Fifth Amendment, prosecutors are accustomed to putting cases together without help from defendants. More than 250 witnesses, including White House and other administration insiders, are cooperating. Records are often duplicative. An email, for example, can show up in the inboxes of lots of people. All you need is one willing to show the email to the committee.
The committee will keep pushing for the truth, with or without their testimony. -
2021-12-11 at 11:31 PM UTC
-
2021-12-12 at 12:03 AM UTC
-
2021-12-12 at 6:46 AM UTCAll my life.
The same as you've been passing yourself of as being unable to comprehend simple subjects like, let's say...impeachments.
How many times was Rump impeached? -
2021-12-12 at 9:08 AM UTC
-
2021-12-12 at 1:04 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra democracy is fake and gay
Obviously more choice is definitely in the public good. The hope is that this results in better candidates and more informed choices being made. This is why democratic and capitalist ideals are so tied together. Saying "I don't like the menu" at a restaurant that's essentially the only one in town is just childish. Either eat something, burn it down and build a new one or starve to death. Literally snowflake mentality to think it's significant that a politicians interests don't align with your own. -
2021-12-12 at 1:19 PM UTCPolitics is gay and for niggers
-
2021-12-12 at 1:48 PM UTC
-
2021-12-12 at 2:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra like getting to choose which piece of the pie to eat after someone's shat all over it
Well at one point the pie was not shit on. In this analogy it'd be pretty easy to fix the pie shitting problem. The difference is forcing someone to eat one piece of pie that's definitely covered in poisonous shit, or choose the piece that looks like it just has some poop flecks and corn on it
